http://online.wsj.com/art...lenews_wsj

Warner Music Group Corp.'s videos and songs began disappearing from the YouTube videosharing Web site early Saturday after talks to renegotiate a licensing deal stalled.

It isn't clear whether the decision to remove the content was made by Warner Music or YouTube. But regardless, the dispute may indicate the start of a broader dispute between YouTube and the music industry over the value of music content on the site.

Warner, like the three other major-label groups, licensed its recording and music-publishing catalogs to YouTube shortly before the site's acquisition by Google Inc. in 2006. In exchange for the use of their music videos and songs, the music companies are paid a share of revenue generated by ads displayed alongside both their content and user-generated content that contains their music.

People in the music industry generally say that music videos don't command significant advertising fees online, and Warner executives have privately expressed frustration with the amount of money they receive from YouTube.

In theory, the new development means that YouTube users cannot view music videos by Warner artists, including Led Zeppelin, Aretha Franklin and Linkin Park. It also means that any video -- even one that is homemade -- that features music by a Warner artist, or written by a songwriter published by Warner/Chappell Music Publishing, won't be available, either.

As of midday Saturday, however, many Warner music videos remained on YouTube.

Warner's record labels, including Atlantic Records and Warner Bros., have 21% of the U.S. recorded music market. Warner/Chappell is the third-largest music publisher in the U.S.

All four major music companies' licenses are up for renewal in March 2009, and all are in the midst of renegotiating. It is not clear whether the other majors -- Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group, Sony Corp.'s Sony BMG Music Entertainment and EMI Group Ltd. -- could reach similar impasses.

A Warner spokesman said in a statement: "We are working actively to find a resolution with YouTube that would enable the return of our artists' content to the site. Until then, we simply cannot accept terms that fail to appropriately and fairly compensate recording artists, songwriters, labels and publishers for the value they provide."

A posting on YouTube's company blog left open the possibility that the videosharing site, not Warner, had made the decision to pull the content. "Sometimes, if we can't reach acceptable business terms, we must part ways with successful partners," the posting read in part. "For example, you may notice videos that contain music owned by Warner Music Group being blocked from the site."

The disagreement suggests that despite YouTube's enormous audience, it is still struggling to sell enough advertising to satisfy its partners. Google has made earning more revenue from YouTube one of its top priorities this year, launching a number of new ways to advertise on the site.

A YouTube spokesman said in an interview Saturday that the new offerings were "starting to show results."

In recent years, YouTube has struck a number of licensing and revenue sharing deals with media companies ranging from music labels to and General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal. YouTube has developed new copyright-identification technology to help enforce the deals, which aim to prevent copyright lawsuits while improving the quality of content on its site to lure more users and advertisers. YouTube gives the majority of the revenue earned by advertising on content covered by these deals to its partners, people familiar with the matter say, although the splits vary.

It's unclear whether other media companies will follow in Warner's footsteps. A number of media companies, including CBS Corp., have recently broadened their partnerships with YouTube, suggesting they are pleased with the results.

Whatever if I want to search for music from Warner Bros, I'll listen on IMEEM, lol.

I read somewhere that all those annoyiing ads on youtube only generated $100million this whole yr

asg said:

That's it?

Man YouTube's flopping hard.

Alot of Network stuff is disappearing quikly, like the late nite shows if you miss a guest, searching almost leads to nothing. YouTube is like the rest of the internet, alot of shit and fake stuff, with some things you want and need buried in the mix

does this mean no more Madonna on youtube???

graecophilos said:

I call for a celebration


I'll start getting pissed if SonyBMG and Universal follow suit

bboy87 said:

I understand youtube can be damaging album-sales-wise. But if you put on videos and live stuff it can be an excellent promotion! The best right now in fact.

lastdecember said:

hulu.com has replaced utube as a destination of choice for TV shows its owned by the tv networks and provides high quality video.

graecophilos said:

This is just a negotiating tactic by warner music I dont see them get rid of utube now that mtv is largely irrelevant and most kids extensively use utube and utube is also moving to HD quality for thier videos but there r better websites if u want to make a power point presentation utube just doesnt have the resolution for such things

asg said:

well thats the thing "owned". Youtube at some point will either have to be bought, or just fade away or turn into a place where people post themselves singing karaoke. As for WB, i still dont think people realize that Prince had no involvement in getting things pulled, he is essentially powerless with that product on WB, plus alot of other WB acts were long gone from YouTube before Prince.

asg said:

I'll go to IMEEM to search for the good shit. I can't find most of the P-Funk stuff, only their live stuff from previous months are there, lol.

Credit Crunch....these guys need money...and WB are turning the screws big time on google...their gonna have to make a deal...and quick...!

LondonStyle said:

Warner Bros is going bankrupt.